Urban Art Association

It would help him separate himself from Blek methinks...

And also separate himself from his earlier work too

what happened to the zy  are you morphing?!

Ha, i thought it might make me sound more  mature?.

Dont reckon so, all over instagram, could be though?, i like it, also it will look good in an auction catalogue.

Looks much better like that than the image posted by the Instagram feed and website

certainly does.  i hardly recognized you!

LOL!


justice scales??

Warning long boring post, hit your ignore buttons now if you don't want to see the result!

After he posted on his website saying the 'Waiting in vain' guy was not a permission piece; aka not legal, so illegal. I thunk something...

Graffiti from it's inception and by it's nature is illegal, painting on someone else's property without permission, that the owner didn't want, is illegal vandalism.

Banksy's 'Better out than in' show is all about him going back to his routes as an illegal graffiti writer (he used 'graffiti' rather than 'street artist' in the voice interview I think). Following on from 'Exit through the gift shop' and perfectly summed up with the Central Park $60 stall, he is telling us the values of illegal graffiti are where his heart is rather than the shallow b*llsh*t of the art establishment.

He's eschewing immediate financial gain to do wot he loves in the only way he knows how, and I say 'immediate' because I'm sure he's well aware that through his audacity, the world's media and social media hype, the long-term career benefits far outweigh a few dollars now.

But this where my little mind got confused, and his post about the 'Waiting in vain' guy started it... the scenario is Banksy's back painting illegally, on the streets of NY, and telling the world this is what he's gonna do, giving everyone knowledge on advance (which must be a first in itself!).

Because of his fame, and quality imo, his illegal street work is already trying to be preserved wherever it appears. Didn't the local council get involved in wanting the bunting sweat shop boy returned?

So my point is, although he's doing all these paintings illegally on peoples properties around NY, no one's gonna complain, no one's going to report him to the NYPD, and scrub their wall 'til it's totally removed (unless he hasn't owned up to doing it). In actual fact they're protecting them, even after they've been tagged or damaged. So are they still illegal?

I'd even go further, I've seen posts on his Instagram saying 'come to my neighbourhood', or 'paint something on my building'... people actually WANT him to paint their area, street or house!

So when he 'illegally' paints on the Hustler men's relaxation centre, where's it's up for a day then removed by the owners to 'protect' it. No one complains about the illegal graffiti, no police are called, no cleaning squad hired and 100s maybe 1000s of people head there to take photos (including news agencies)... can that still be called 'illegal'?

By being so successful, popular and good at what he does isn't his work blurring the lines between 'the letter' and 'the spirit' of the law!? Similarly if Damien Hurst one night decided to do a massive soot painting 'illegally' on someones property I think people would see it as a 'stunt' rather than a criminal offence, wouldn't they?

Apologies, it's really clear in my head what I'm trying to say, just wish I cud do it more succinctly!

Succinctly put kylefrombrooklyn, thanks.

This was answered a while back, a former head of NYC's Vandal Unit says not illegal if nobody is complaining...so for example The Hustler Club removing and saying maybe they'll display inside one would think they think a great gift (and with the added revenue a chance for better looking women).  This is why the police have called some of the property owners to see if they want to press charges - because if after the fact with no complaints not illegal.

However, if caught in the act he could be arrested on public nuisance charges, for example. But honestly half the NYC police force is looking for the missing autistic kid, who has been missing for almost as long as this project.

I agree naughtyshorty, I have given up trying to understand him.

I was thinking about it more from how society seems to be changing their collective standards so that he is acceptable.

m.animalnewyork.com/2013/can-banksys-illegal-art-defy-nycs-graffiti-law/

I think the article animalnewyork posted the 23rd addressed these points rather well. I do agree that he is emphasizing the graffiti aspect as well as the illegal aspect and is definitely listening to what's being said.

I feel he prides himself on doing things the old school way so to speak illegally and wants to make sure people understand this. Thus the clarification in the hustler piece. know matter how much money you have being true to your roots is the best you can do regardless of what anyone does with his pieces after the fact. As long as he knows he did them for his reasons, those same reasons he probably started painting on a wall in the first place. Regardless if people call it street art I call it graffiti because he still represents that aspect in his work. A progressive form of graffiti.

I would like to see something hideous and prominent. Something that has to be removed.